Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Founded by Plank, Frans

Editor-in-Chief: Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria

3 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.304

CiteScore 2017: 0.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.285
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.810

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 21, Issue 3

Issues

Person as an inflectional category

Johanna Nichols
  • University of California, Berkeley, Slavic Languages 2979, 6303 Dwinelle, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
  • Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
  • Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-12-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0010

Abstract

The category of person has both inflectional and lexical aspects, and the distinction provides a finely graduated grammatical trait, relatively stable in both families and areas, and revealing for both typology and linguistic geography. Inflectional behavior includes reference to speech-act roles, indexation of arguments, discreteness from other categories such as number or gender, assignment and/or placement in syntax, arrangement in paradigms, and general resemblance to closed-class items. Lexical behavior includes sharing categories and/or forms and/or syntactic behavior with major lexical classes (usually nouns) and generally resembling open-class items. Criteria are given here for typologizing person as more vs. less inflectional, some basic typological correlations are tested, and the worldwide linguistic-geographical distribution is mapped.

Keywords: areal typology; grammaticalization; inflection; linguistic geography; morphology; person; personal pronouns; population history; sampling; syntax

References

  • Abbi, Anvita. 2013. A grammar of the Great Andamanese language: An ethnolinguistic study. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Abondolo, Daniel (ed.). 1998. The Uralic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva. 2014. Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 3–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Inflection. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 23–43. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Arkad’ev, Pjotr M., Jurij A. Lander, Aleksandr B. Letučij, Nina R. Sumbatova & Jakov G. Testelets. 2009. Vvedenie: Osnovnye svedenija ob adygejskom jazyke. In Pjotr M. Arkad’ev, Jurij A. Lander, Aleksandr B. Letučij, Nina R. Sumbatova & Jakov G. Testelets (eds.), Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka, 17–120. Moskva: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet.Google Scholar

  • Bender, Lionel. 1996. Kunama. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Lamutische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Belhare. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 546–570. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song (ed.) 2011, 399–444.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2005. Inclusive/exclusive as person vs. number categories worldwide. In Filimonova (ed.) 2005, 47–70.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32S. 3–15.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edn.), Vol. 3: Grammatical relations and the lexicon, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Franz (ed.). 1922. Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

  • Bowe, Heather. 1990. Categories, constituents, and constituent order in Pitjantjatjara: An Aboriginal language of Australia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bugaeva, Anna. 2012. Southern Hokkaido Ainu. In Nicolas Tranter (ed.), The languages of Japan and Korea, 461–507. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Casamiquela, Rodolfo M. 1983. Nociones de gramática del gününa küne: Présentation de la langue des tehuelche septentrionaux australs (Patagonie continentale). Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar

  • Charachidzé, Georges. 1981. Grammaire de la langue avare. Paris: Jean-Favard.Google Scholar

  • Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2003. Abkhaz. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Colarusso, John. 1992. A grammar of the Kabardian language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1988. General features of the Uralic languages. In Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic languages: Description, history, and foreign influences, 451–477. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Cooke, Joseph R. 1968. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Coppock, Elizabeth & Stephen Wechsler. 2012. The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 699–740.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 48–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. & Matthew Baerman. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16. 231–246.Google Scholar

  • Curnow, Timothy J. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An indigenous language of southwestern Colombia. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cysouw, Michael. 2013a. Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent pronouns. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013, Chapter 39. http://wals.info/chapter/39

  • Cysouw, Michael. 2013b. Inclusive/exclusive distinction in verbal inflection. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013, Chapter 40. http://wals.info/chapter/40

  • Dahl, Östen. 2000. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition, 99–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Daniel, Michael. 2005. Understanding inclusives. In Filimonova (ed.) 2005, 3–48.Google Scholar

  • Daniel, Michael. 2013. Plurality in independent personal pronouns. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013, Chapter 35. http://wals.info/chapter/35 (accessed on 13 January 2017).

  • Daniel, Michael. In preparation. Person in Archi revisited. Manuscript, Nacional’nyj issledovatel’skij universitet “Vysšaja škola èkonomiki”, Moskva.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2000. Categories of the noun phrase in Jarawara. Journal of Linguistics 36. 487–510.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013, Chapter 81. http://wals.info/chapter/81

  • Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie. http://wals.info/

  • Dunn, Michael John, 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-Wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune (Pacific Linguistics 541). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Filimonova, Elena (ed.). 2005. Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Foley, William A. In preparation. The epidemiology of language: The evolution of word class categorialization in the Austronesian languages.Google Scholar

  • Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Forker, Diana. 2013. A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence. London: Cassell.Google Scholar

  • Frachtenberg, Leo J. 1922a. Coos. In Boas (ed.) 1922, 297–429.Google Scholar

  • Frachtenberg, Leo J. 1922b. Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua). In Boas (ed.) 1922, 431–629.Google Scholar

  • Fromm, Hans. 1982. Finnische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

  • Goddard, Ives (ed.). 1996. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17: Languages. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar

  • Graczyk, Randolph. 2007. A grammar of Crow. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010. Understanding morphology. 2nd edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar

  • Hausenberg, Anu-Reet. 1998. Komi. In Abondolo (ed.) 1998, 305–326.Google Scholar

  • Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Frans Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection, 75–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2003. Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time, and person, 185–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hengeveld, Kees. 2012. Referential markers and agreement markers in Functional Discourse Grammar. Lanuguage Sciences 34. 468–479.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hill, Kenneth C. (ed.). 1998. Hopi dictionary/Hopiikwa lavaytutuveni: A Hopi-English dictionary of the Third Mesa dialect. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

  • Iversen, Rune & Guus Kroonen. 2017. Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and archaeological perspectives on how Indo-European was implemented in southern Scandinavia. American Journal of Archaeology 121. 4511–4525.Google Scholar

  • Janhunen, Juha. 2009. Proto-Uralic – what, where, and when? In Jussi Ylikoski (ed.), The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society, 57–78. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258.pdf

  • Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2. 39–76.Google Scholar

  • Kallio, Petri. 2015. The language contact situation in prehistoric Northeastern Europe. In Robert Mailhammer, Theo Vennemann gen. Nierfeld & Birgit Anette Olsen (eds.), The linguistic roots of Europe: Origin and development of European languages, 77–102. København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.Google Scholar

  • Kari, James & Ben A. Potter (eds.). 2010. The Dene-Yeniseian connection. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar

  • Keraševa, Zajnab I. 1960. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk adygejskogo jazyka. In Xadžimeta D. Vodoždokova (ed.), Russko-adygejskij slovar’, 1059–1098. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej.Google Scholar

  • Keresztes, László. 1998. Mansi. In Abondolo (ed.) 1998, 387–427.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2003. Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world. In Plank (ed.) 2003, 37–112.Google Scholar

  • Killian, Don. 2015. Topics in Uduk phonology and morphosyntax. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto doctoral dissertation. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/156271

  • Killian, Don. In press. Uduk gender from a Koman perspective. In Francesca Di Garbo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • Konstantinova, Ol’ga A. 1968. Èvenkijskij jazyk. In Pjotr Ja. Skorik (ed.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, Vol. 5: Mongol’skie, tunguso-man’čžurskie i paleoaziatskie jazyki, 68–87. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 2001. Über die Deklination der Personalpronomina in der finnisch-ugrischen Grundsprache. In Anu Turk, Triinu Palo & Tõnu Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Vol. 5: Dissertationes sectionum: Linguistica II, 178–182. Tartu: Eesti Fennougristide Komitee.Google Scholar

  • Lander, Jurij A. 2017. Reformulating head/dependent marking. Paper to be presented at the 12th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Canberra, December 2017.Google Scholar

  • Leer, Jeff. 1991. Evidence for a Northern Northwest Coast language area: Promiscuous number marking and periphrastic possessive constructions in Haida, Eyak, and Aleut. International Journal of American Linguistics 57. 158–193.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lytkin, Vasilij I. 1966. Komi-zyrjanskij jazyk. In Vasilij I. Lytkin & Klara E. Majtinskaja (eds.), Jazyki narodov SSSR, Vol. 3: Finno-ugorskie i samodijskie jazyki, 281–299. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Martin, Jack. 1999. External possession in Creek. In Payne & Barshi (eds.) 1999, 228–250.Google Scholar

  • McGregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • McKay, Graham R. 1978. Pronominal person and number categories in Rembarrnga and Djeebbana. Oceanic Linguistics 17. 27–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Merrifield, William R. 1959. Classification of Kiowa nouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 25. 269–271.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in typological perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe. 2016. Sampling for variety. Linguistic Typology 20. 233–296.Google Scholar

  • Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.). 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2015. Cherokee reference grammar. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2001. Why “me” and “thee”? In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999, 253–276. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language compexity as an evolving variable, 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2011a. Ingush grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2011b. Causativization and contact in Nakh-Daghestanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 37. 68–80.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2013. The origin and evolution of case-suppletive pronouns: Eurasian evidence. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 313–345. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2016. Noun-based and verb-based languages. Poster at the 49th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Napoli, 31 August – 3 September 2016.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2017a. Causativization as non-diversity: Linguistic and non-linguistic causes. Presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Zürich, 10–13 September 2017.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2017b. Basic event structure: Phases and transitions. Paper presented at Universiteit van Amsterdam, June 2017.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. In press. Caronical complexity. In Peter Arkadiev & Francesco Gardani (eds.), Morphological complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna & Christian Bentz. In press. Morphological complexity of languages reflects the settlement history of the Americas. In Katerina Harvati, Gerhard Jäger & Hugo Reyes-Centano (eds.), New perspectives on the peopling of the Americas. Tübingen: Kerns.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2013a. Locus of marking in the clause. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013, Chapter 23. http://wals.info/chapter/23 (accessed on 13 January 2017).

  • Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2013b. Locus of marking: Whole-language typology. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), Chapter 25. http://wals.info/chapter/25 (accessed on 13 January 2017).

  • Nichols, Johanna & Balthasar Bickel. 2013c. Possessive classification. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013, Chapter 59. http://wals.info/chapter/59 (accessed on 13 January 2017).

  • Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8. 149–211.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel. 2013. The Autotyp genealogy and geography. www.spw.uzh.ch/autotyp/

  • Nikolaeva, Irina. 2005. Modifier-head person concord. In Geert Booij, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi & Sergio Scalise (eds.), Morphology and linguistic typology: On-line proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4), Catania, 21–23 September 2003, 221–234. Bologna: Università degli Studi di Bologna. http://electra.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2375/2634

  • Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Obata, Kazuko. 2003. A grammar of Bilua: A Papuan language of the Solomons (Pacific Linguistics 540). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Öztürk, Balkız & Markus A. Pöchtrager (eds.). 2011. Pazar Laz. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi (eds.). 1999. External possession. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Pitkin, Harvey. 1984. Wintu grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans. 1985. Die Ordnung der Personen. Folia Linguistica 119. 111–176.Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans. 1999. Split morphology: How agglutination and flection mix. Linguistic Typology 3. 279–340.Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans. 2003. The selective elaboration of nominal or pronominal inflection. In Plank (ed.) 2003, 253–287.Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans (ed.). 2003. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Riese, Timothy. 2001. Vogul. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Robins, R. H. 1958. The Yurok language: Grammar, texts, lexicon. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Rood, David S. & Allan R. Taylor. 1996. Sketch of Lakhota, a Siouan language. In Goddard (ed.) 1996, 440–482.Google Scholar

  • Rootsi, Siiri, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Marian Baldovič, Manfred Kayser, Ildus A. Kutuev, Rita Khusainova, Marina A. Bermisheva, Marina Gubina, Sardana A. Fedorova, Anne-Mai Ilumäe, Elza A. Khusnutdinova, Mikhail I. Voevoda, Ludmila P. Osipova, Mark Stoneking, Alice A. Lin, Vladimir Ferak, Jüri Parik, Toomas Kivisild, Peter A. Underhill & Richard Villems. 2007. A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics 15. 204–211.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rude, Noel E. 1985. Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Salminen, Tapani. 1997. Tundra Nenets inflection. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

  • Salminen, Tapani. 2012. Tundra Nenets. Manuscript, Helsingin yliopisto. Revised version of “Nenets” in Abondolo (ed.) 1998, 516–547.Google Scholar

  • Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. Saamic. In Abondolo (ed.) 1998, 43–95.Google Scholar

  • Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Person marking. In Song (ed.) 2011, 322–345.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

  • Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2011. Language universals and linguistic complexity: Three case studies in core argument marking. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto doctoral dissertation. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/27782

  • Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A Mapuche grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Song, Jae Jung (ed.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov. 2003. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Tamura, Suzuko. 2000. The Ainu language. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar

  • Traill, Anthony. 1994. A !Xóõ dictionary. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar

  • Tryon, Darrell T. 1968. Iai grammar (Pacific Linguistics B-8). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Vajda, Edward. 2010. A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages. In James Kari & Ben A. Potter (eds.), The Dene-Yeniseian connection, 33–99. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Languages Center.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1985. Case marking and the study of the Lakhota clause. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Approaches to theory from the field, 363–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Watkins, Laurel J. & Parker McKenzie. 1984. A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

  • Weber, David John. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2010. Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Taras Zakharko, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & Balthasar Bickel. Forthcoming. Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement. Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Wolfart, H. Christoph. 1996. Sketch of Cree, an Algonquian language. In Goddard (ed.) 1996, 390–439.Google Scholar

  • Wonderly, William, Lorna P. Gibson & Paul L. Kirk. 1954. Number in Kiowa: Nouns, demonstratives, and adjectives. International Journal of American Linguistics 20. 1–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. Hierarchies of person. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 714–733.Google Scholar

  • Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. 372–385.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-12-07

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 387–456, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0010.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in